MUHAMMAD IKRAM vs THE STATE and anothers

ORDER

' ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.--;This Criminal Revision under section 435 read with section 439, Cr.P.C.

Is lodged against the order dated 7-2-2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur whereby the petitioner was summoned to face trial as an accused in case F.I.R. No,25 of 2010 dated 20-1-2010, under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Kotwali, Bahawalpur, and order dated 21-2-2011 whereby the SHO was directed to submit fresh report under section 173, Cr.P.C.

2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders are against law and facts; that the petitioner has been declared innocent in the police investigation, however his name was neither mentioned in Column No,2 nor in Column No,3 of the report under section 173, Cr.P.C.

Submitted to the Magistrate, who illegally summoned the accused mentioned in Column No,2 of the challan and thereafter sent up the challan to the learned Sessions Judge for trial; that the complainant filed an application for summoning of the petitioner as an accused which was illegally accepted by the learned trial Court.

3. Arguments heard. Record perused.

4. At the outset it is pertinent to mention that under section 190(3) of the Cr.P.C. Although a Magistrate is not supposed to enter into an inquiry, however he is not expected to act as a post office to transmit the case for trial to the Court of Session merely because a section relating to offence exclusively triable by a Court of Session has been mentioned by the police in the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Or the complainant under section 200, Cr.P.C., rather he is expected to apply his mind to the material placed before him by the police or the complainant in order to determine as to whether the allegations make out a prima facie case triable exclusively by a Court of Session. Needless to mention that a Magistrate in terms of section 190(3), Cr.P.C. Takes cognizance of an B offence and not an offender. Reliance is made upon Mehar Khan v Yaqub Khan and another (1981 SCMR 267).. In the instant case petitioner's plea that the learned trial Court i,e, Additional Sessions Judge was not competent to summon the petitioner as an accused as he was found innocent in the police investigation neither mentioned in Column No,2 nor in Column No,3 of the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Is unfounded and devoid of any force. In this regard suffice to say, that the learned trial court takes cognizance of the offence and not of the offender. On taking cognizance of the offence it acquires jurisdiction over all persons involved and not only over persons against whom challan is submitted. Reliance is made upon Raja Khuslibakhtur Rehman and another v. The State (1985 SCMR 1314) and Muhammad Yaqub v. The State (PLD 1998 Lahore 523).

5. In the impugned order the learned trial Court has categorically mentioned that the petitioner is specifically nominated in the F.I.R. With particular attribution of a role supported by statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Of the P.Ws. Therefore, it furnishes sufficient reason for summoning of the petitioner as an accused after perusal of the record. It is totally immaterial and of no legal effect that the police had not mentioned his name as accused in Column No, 2 or Column No,3 of the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. The impugned orders passed in, exercise of lawful authority therefore are neither perverse nor legally infirm.

6. For the foregoing discussion and reasons, the petitioner has no case to interfere with the impugned orders by invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court. This Criminal Revision petition having no merit is therefore dismissed in limine.